[SciPy-Dev] issues trac migration review
Thu Apr 25 19:33:11 CDT 2013
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Skipper Seabold <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:22 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Skipper Seabold <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 7:49 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> incorrect crosslinks again
>>>> comments like this are pretty annoying since the create backlinks
>>>> a collection of backlinks
>>>> trac didn't have the backlinks, so incorrect links were less of a distraction.
>>>> Is there anything we can do? or maybe it's not worth it with old tickets.
>>> Ugh, I spent an hour fixing the regex for this last night and it
>>> happens automatically on github anyway.
>>> I just put that in a code block and it goes away, but no there's no
>>> way to really do that programmatically.
>> Yes, I realized that before, there is no way to recognize this with a regex.
> Well it doesn't convert it to gh-. That's the regex I control.
gdb traces that are not in triple backticks ``` produce a lot of links
in the example
#30 0x080b395c in PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords (func=0xb7903c34,
arg=0xb7db502c, kw=0x0) at ../Python/ceval.c:3435
#31 0x080590d0 in PyObject_CallObject (o=0xb7903c34, a=0xb7db502c)
gh-559 0xb7891b0a in init_gobject ()
gh-560 0xb77c8aa1 in g_source_is_destroyed () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
gh-561 0xb77ca802 in g_main_context_dispatch () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
gh-562 0xb77cd7df in g_main_context_check () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
gh-563 0xb77cdb89 in g_main_loop_run () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
gh-564 0xb73ad574 in gtk_main () from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
gh-565 0xb76bbd90 in init_gtk ()
#39 0x080b8ab0 in PyEval_EvalFrame (f=0x818559c) at ../Python/ceval.c:3552
---Type to continue, or q to quit---
#40 0x080ba4b9 in PyEval_EvalCodeEx (co=0xb7b9e0a0, globals=0xb7c119bc,
locals=0x0, args=0x8155a88, argcount=1, kws=0x8155a8c, kwcount=0,
defs=0xb7ba8dd8, defcount=2, closure=0x0) at ../Python/ceval.c:2741
>> I was thinking more about whether we should manually edit the
>> offending comments.
> Sounds fine to me.
>> At least I would prefer, when I see a wrong backlink in one of the
>> issues that I look at, to just go and edit the linking comment.
>> It would trigger a notification, I assume.
> I don't think a manual edit would. Doing it with the code deletes the
> old comments and pushes new ones, so that would.
I don't know, I never edited someone elses comments, and I don't get a
notification of my edits (still a major shortcoming of the github
issue notifications compared to trac.)
> I think we're out of the notification doghouse now though (at least
> with github...).
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
More information about the SciPy-Dev